do they have the same pronunciation.
"dear" & "deer"
for me, they're homophones.
dear /dI@`/
deer /dI@`/
I think for most North American dilect speakers, they're pronounced the same but for people from same regions from the UK, they might be somewhat different.
dear /dI@`/
deer /dI@`/
I think for most North American dilect speakers, they're pronounced the same but for people from same regions from the UK, they might be somewhat different.
Even most UK speakers pronounce them the same, altho this wasn't the case historically. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
<</ɛː/, /eː/ are shifted again to /eː/, /iː/ in Early Modern English, causing merger of former /eː/ with /iː/; but the two are still distinguished in spelling as ea, ee.
* The fleece merger (Wells 1982, 194-96): /ɛː/, /eː/ are shifted to /eː/, /iː/, causing merger of former /eː/ with /iː/.
o Middle English /ɛː/ and /eː/ are still distinguished in spelling as ea, ee. (see, sea.)
o /eː/ sometimes remained; hence great and meat no longer rhyme. (And threat rhymes with neither, due to early shortening, although all three once rhymed.) The merger is complete outside the British Isles and virtually complete within them. Some speakers in Northern England distinguish [ɪə] in the first group of words from [iː] or [əi] in the second group. Old-fashioned varieties of Hiberno-English and the West Country dialects preserve the Early Modern English /eː/–/iː/ contrast, but it is rare in these accents nowadays. A handful of words (such as break, steak, great) escaped the fleece merger in the standard accents and are thus have the same vowel as words like brake, stake, grate in almost all varieties of English.>>
So, pairs like "deer/dear" or "see/sea" used to have separate vowels but most varieties of English have merged them by this point. However, the spelling distinction is still maintained. I pronounce "deer" and "dear" both as [dIr\].
<</ɛː/, /eː/ are shifted again to /eː/, /iː/ in Early Modern English, causing merger of former /eː/ with /iː/; but the two are still distinguished in spelling as ea, ee.
* The fleece merger (Wells 1982, 194-96): /ɛː/, /eː/ are shifted to /eː/, /iː/, causing merger of former /eː/ with /iː/.
o Middle English /ɛː/ and /eː/ are still distinguished in spelling as ea, ee. (see, sea.)
o /eː/ sometimes remained; hence great and meat no longer rhyme. (And threat rhymes with neither, due to early shortening, although all three once rhymed.) The merger is complete outside the British Isles and virtually complete within them. Some speakers in Northern England distinguish [ɪə] in the first group of words from [iː] or [əi] in the second group. Old-fashioned varieties of Hiberno-English and the West Country dialects preserve the Early Modern English /eː/–/iː/ contrast, but it is rare in these accents nowadays. A handful of words (such as break, steak, great) escaped the fleece merger in the standard accents and are thus have the same vowel as words like brake, stake, grate in almost all varieties of English.>>
So, pairs like "deer/dear" or "see/sea" used to have separate vowels but most varieties of English have merged them by this point. However, the spelling distinction is still maintained. I pronounce "deer" and "dear" both as [dIr\].
I pronounce them both as [dI@`].
Kirk, would you say that your /I/ in "deer" is the same sound you have in "pit", or is there any noticeable allophony? Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)
Kirk, would you say that your /I/ in "deer" is the same sound you have in "pit", or is there any noticeable allophony? Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)
<<Kirk, would you say that your /I/ in "deer" is the same sound you have in "pit", or is there any noticeable allophony?>>
There might be a slight difference but they seem nearly identical to me.
<<Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)>>
Yeah, people have debated for awhile whether it's more accurate to transcribe that sound with vowel + [r\] or vowel + rhotic schwa. I think for me the vowel + rhotic schwa implies a longer sound than I typically produce. It's a tricky issue but I believe vowel + [r\] still probably represents my speech better in most cases, but saying vowel + rhotic schwa doesn't sound too off either. It just seems like a more protracted sound than the one I normally have.
There might be a slight difference but they seem nearly identical to me.
<<Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)>>
Yeah, people have debated for awhile whether it's more accurate to transcribe that sound with vowel + [r\] or vowel + rhotic schwa. I think for me the vowel + rhotic schwa implies a longer sound than I typically produce. It's a tricky issue but I believe vowel + [r\] still probably represents my speech better in most cases, but saying vowel + rhotic schwa doesn't sound too off either. It just seems like a more protracted sound than the one I normally have.
Deer and dear are pronounced the same for me, but the vowels in deer and pit are not.
<<Deer and dear are pronounced the same for me, but the vowels in deer and pit are not.>>
Interesting... On a related note, how would you describe the vowel you use in "Mary/merry/marry"? Is it the same as the vowel in "bet", or do "Mary/merry/marry" and "bet" have different vowels in the same way that the "deer" and "pit" have different vowels?
Interesting... On a related note, how would you describe the vowel you use in "Mary/merry/marry"? Is it the same as the vowel in "bet", or do "Mary/merry/marry" and "bet" have different vowels in the same way that the "deer" and "pit" have different vowels?
Sorry, I put in an extra "the". The last sentence should be:
Is it the same as the vowel in "bet", or do "Mary/merry/marry" and "bet" have different vowels in the same way that "deer" and "pit" have different vowels?
Is it the same as the vowel in "bet", or do "Mary/merry/marry" and "bet" have different vowels in the same way that "deer" and "pit" have different vowels?
Mary, merry, and marry all have the same vowel for me as air, which is not the same as the one in bet, so I would say that yes, the difference is similar to the one between deer and pit -- long versus short; ee vs. ih and ay vs eh. Of course, the R's distort the issue a little, too....
Yes, that's interesting. So a narrow phonetic transcription of your speech might require the rhotic diphthongs [E@`], [I@`] and presumably [U@`].
>>Yes, that's interesting. So a narrow phonetic transcription of your speech might require the rhotic diphthongs [E@`], [I@`] and presumably [U@`].<<
Is it that they're [ɛɚ], [ɪɚ] and [ʊɚ], or is that they're [eɹ], [iɹ], [uɹ]? Uriel does say "long versus short; ee vs ih and ay vs eh". The r distorting the issue a little could be that prevents the diphthongisation standard in AmE, so that they contrast with [ej], [ij], [uw] (as they're usually transcribed for AmE).
Of course, I have no eye-dear about these sounds. My native dialect of English is one that makes these sounds [eː], [ɪː], and either [ʉː.ə], [ʊː.ə] or [oː], depending on myriad factors including whether or not there's a /j/ before it; if there's no /j/ before it, if there was one and it was dropped; otherwise, what sound is before it; and often how it's spelt. To top it off, I also can't hear the difference between [i] ~ [ɪ], [y] ~ [ʏ] or [u] ~ [ʊ]! (More accurately, a true [i], [y] sound like /ɪ/, /ʉː/ to me, whereas vowels in other languages normally spelt [ɪ], [ʏ] alternate between sounding like (to me) /ɪ/ and /e/; /ʉː/ and /ɜː/=[øː]. This is, of course, due to the rather close/front value of AusE /ɪ/.) Of course, for most English dialects—particularly the foreign standards, General American as heard on TV and Received Pronunciation, the tense sounds are conveniently diphthongised, and as a dialect of my native language it's easy to guess what they're saying, so I know (unthinkingly) what I'm hearing.
(BTW: I generally assume we can all read Unicode IPA okay here. Am I wrong? Should I be writing in X-Sampa or something? I've customised my keyboard so that I can type in Unicode IPA easy enough, so I feel I might as well, but if it's unreadable, then I probably shouldn't.)
Is it that they're [ɛɚ], [ɪɚ] and [ʊɚ], or is that they're [eɹ], [iɹ], [uɹ]? Uriel does say "long versus short; ee vs ih and ay vs eh". The r distorting the issue a little could be that prevents the diphthongisation standard in AmE, so that they contrast with [ej], [ij], [uw] (as they're usually transcribed for AmE).
Of course, I have no eye-dear about these sounds. My native dialect of English is one that makes these sounds [eː], [ɪː], and either [ʉː.ə], [ʊː.ə] or [oː], depending on myriad factors including whether or not there's a /j/ before it; if there's no /j/ before it, if there was one and it was dropped; otherwise, what sound is before it; and often how it's spelt. To top it off, I also can't hear the difference between [i] ~ [ɪ], [y] ~ [ʏ] or [u] ~ [ʊ]! (More accurately, a true [i], [y] sound like /ɪ/, /ʉː/ to me, whereas vowels in other languages normally spelt [ɪ], [ʏ] alternate between sounding like (to me) /ɪ/ and /e/; /ʉː/ and /ɜː/=[øː]. This is, of course, due to the rather close/front value of AusE /ɪ/.) Of course, for most English dialects—particularly the foreign standards, General American as heard on TV and Received Pronunciation, the tense sounds are conveniently diphthongised, and as a dialect of my native language it's easy to guess what they're saying, so I know (unthinkingly) what I'm hearing.
(BTW: I generally assume we can all read Unicode IPA okay here. Am I wrong? Should I be writing in X-Sampa or something? I've customised my keyboard so that I can type in Unicode IPA easy enough, so I feel I might as well, but if it's unreadable, then I probably shouldn't.)
Both come out the same way for me....but the R is rolled at the end...not over emphatic.ally...just a wee trilling so you know the R is really there, unlike down South..... :-)
The English are far, far more likely to pwonounce their Rs more as a W than we are, more noticeably when it's the initial letter. Until I watched the Weakest Link or met a lot of English people at uni (in England as it happened...Leeds was weally, weally gweat!) I was surpwised at the number of them you had this speech peculiawlity. Maybe it's some sort of class/status thing...SOME of them seemed just a wee but posh....
Och! I've stwayed a bit from the dear/deer thing, haven't I? :-(
The English are far, far more likely to pwonounce their Rs more as a W than we are, more noticeably when it's the initial letter. Until I watched the Weakest Link or met a lot of English people at uni (in England as it happened...Leeds was weally, weally gweat!) I was surpwised at the number of them you had this speech peculiawlity. Maybe it's some sort of class/status thing...SOME of them seemed just a wee but posh....
Och! I've stwayed a bit from the dear/deer thing, haven't I? :-(
I myself cannot read Unicode IPA on the machine I am using at the moment (under Firefox). One should not, under any circumstances, actually assume that people will be able to read IPA, and hence it is always prudent to at least provide X-SAMPA alonside such, when one uses such at all.
>>Kirk, would you say that your /I/ in "deer" is the same sound you have in "pit", or is there any noticeable allophony? Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)<<
>><<Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)>>
Yeah, people have debated for awhile whether it's more accurate to transcribe that sound with vowel + [r\] or vowel + rhotic schwa. I think for me the vowel + rhotic schwa implies a longer sound than I typically produce. It's a tricky issue but I believe vowel + [r\] still probably represents my speech better in most cases, but saying vowel + rhotic schwa doesn't sound too off either. It just seems like a more protracted sound than the one I normally have.<<
For me at least, the vowel in "deer" is probably slightly tenser than that in "pit", beside the two differing in length, "deer" having a long vowel and "pit" having a short vowel. That aside, I always pronounce [Ir] as [I:r\] or [Ir\] (depending on whether it is followed by an unvoiced consonant or not), and *[I@`] never actually shows up in my dialect.
>><<Obviously there's no phonemic need to show the rhotic diphthong [I@`] in mirror-nearer merged dialects, but I suspect that what's transcribed as [Ir\] in most NAE may actually be closer to my [I@`] than to my [Ir\]. ([Ir\] only occurs word-medially for me, like in "Sirius", and when I try to cut off the "ius" and just say [sIr\], the vowel seems far laxer than what I hear when most NAE speakers say "sear".)>>
Yeah, people have debated for awhile whether it's more accurate to transcribe that sound with vowel + [r\] or vowel + rhotic schwa. I think for me the vowel + rhotic schwa implies a longer sound than I typically produce. It's a tricky issue but I believe vowel + [r\] still probably represents my speech better in most cases, but saying vowel + rhotic schwa doesn't sound too off either. It just seems like a more protracted sound than the one I normally have.<<
For me at least, the vowel in "deer" is probably slightly tenser than that in "pit", beside the two differing in length, "deer" having a long vowel and "pit" having a short vowel. That aside, I always pronounce [Ir] as [I:r\] or [Ir\] (depending on whether it is followed by an unvoiced consonant or not), and *[I@`] never actually shows up in my dialect.
>>Is it that they're [ɛɚ], [ɪɚ] and [ʊɚ], or is that they're [eɹ], [iɹ], [uɹ]? Uriel does say "long versus short; ee vs ih and ay vs eh". The r distorting the issue a little could be that prevents the diphthongisation standard in AmE, so that they contrast with [ej], [ij], [uw] (as they're usually transcribed for AmE).
Of course, I have no eye-dear about these sounds. My native dialect of English is one that makes these sounds [eː], [ɪː], and either [ʉː.ə], [ʊː.ə] or [oː], depending on myriad factors including whether or not there's a /j/ before it; if there's no /j/ before it, if there was one and it was dropped; otherwise, what sound is before it; and often how it's spelt. To top it off, I also can't hear the difference between [i] ~ [ɪ], [y] ~ [ʏ] or [u] ~ [ʊ]! (More accurately, a true [i], [y] sound like /ɪ/, /ʉː/ to me, whereas vowels in other languages normally spelt [ɪ], [ʏ] alternate between sounding like (to me) /ɪ/ and /e/; /ʉː/ and /ɜː/=[øː]. This is, of course, due to the rather close/front value of AusE /ɪ/.) Of course, for most English dialects—particularly the foreign standards, General American as heard on TV and Received Pronunciation, the tense sounds are conveniently diphthongised, and as a dialect of my native language it's easy to guess what they're saying, so I know (unthinkingly) what I'm hearing. <<
Depends on just what North American English dialect one is speaking of, since a good number of dialects, such as mine and Kirk's, have monophthongized tense vowels, including /e/ and /o/, in most positions, with [eI] and [oU] just turning into relatively limited allophones of such. For example, offglides for tense vowels only reliably show up in my own dialect in all registers when a tense vowel is followed by another vowel or word-finally in formal speech. In informal speech here, tense vowels may show up as pure monophthongs in all positions, with the exception that /o/ will at times in some (primarily younger) individuals' speech "break" word-finally as a fronted and very pronounced diphthong, and such diphthong may collapse so as to be just become a high, fronted monophthong. However, outside word-final and prevocalic positions, in informal speech in my dialect practically all tense vowels are monopthongs in all cases.
Note that such "breaking" is such that word-final [o] will diphthongize as one of [8}], [2Y], or even [2y], and the resulting diphthong may in turn collapse as [}], [Y], or possibly [y]. However the distribution of such "breaking" is inconsistent, as it does not show up in people who are not younger, and as for people my age, some do such extremely frequently, while some barely do such at all if ever; for example, I will rarely do such, tending more strongly towards a highly backed, purely monophthongal [o_-], whereas my younger sister seems to very frequently favor highly diphthongal and highly fronted pronunciations, even approaching [2y].
Of course, I have no eye-dear about these sounds. My native dialect of English is one that makes these sounds [eː], [ɪː], and either [ʉː.ə], [ʊː.ə] or [oː], depending on myriad factors including whether or not there's a /j/ before it; if there's no /j/ before it, if there was one and it was dropped; otherwise, what sound is before it; and often how it's spelt. To top it off, I also can't hear the difference between [i] ~ [ɪ], [y] ~ [ʏ] or [u] ~ [ʊ]! (More accurately, a true [i], [y] sound like /ɪ/, /ʉː/ to me, whereas vowels in other languages normally spelt [ɪ], [ʏ] alternate between sounding like (to me) /ɪ/ and /e/; /ʉː/ and /ɜː/=[øː]. This is, of course, due to the rather close/front value of AusE /ɪ/.) Of course, for most English dialects—particularly the foreign standards, General American as heard on TV and Received Pronunciation, the tense sounds are conveniently diphthongised, and as a dialect of my native language it's easy to guess what they're saying, so I know (unthinkingly) what I'm hearing. <<
Depends on just what North American English dialect one is speaking of, since a good number of dialects, such as mine and Kirk's, have monophthongized tense vowels, including /e/ and /o/, in most positions, with [eI] and [oU] just turning into relatively limited allophones of such. For example, offglides for tense vowels only reliably show up in my own dialect in all registers when a tense vowel is followed by another vowel or word-finally in formal speech. In informal speech here, tense vowels may show up as pure monophthongs in all positions, with the exception that /o/ will at times in some (primarily younger) individuals' speech "break" word-finally as a fronted and very pronounced diphthong, and such diphthong may collapse so as to be just become a high, fronted monophthong. However, outside word-final and prevocalic positions, in informal speech in my dialect practically all tense vowels are monopthongs in all cases.
Note that such "breaking" is such that word-final [o] will diphthongize as one of [8}], [2Y], or even [2y], and the resulting diphthong may in turn collapse as [}], [Y], or possibly [y]. However the distribution of such "breaking" is inconsistent, as it does not show up in people who are not younger, and as for people my age, some do such extremely frequently, while some barely do such at all if ever; for example, I will rarely do such, tending more strongly towards a highly backed, purely monophthongal [o_-], whereas my younger sister seems to very frequently favor highly diphthongal and highly fronted pronunciations, even approaching [2y].